Remove a specified node from a Godot scene file. Provide the project, scene, and node path to delete the node directly from the file system.
Remove a node from a scene file (headless)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodePath | Yes | Path to the node to remove (e.g., "root/Player/OldNode") | |
| scenePath | Yes | Scene file path (relative to project) | |
| projectPath | Yes | Godot project path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Remove a node from a scene file (headless)' clearly indicates a destructive mutation on a file, but it does not disclose whether the removal is permanent, whether the file is overwritten in-place, whether there is undo/safety, or what happens if the node path is invalid. This is acceptable but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence that states the operation and context. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could add a brief mention of when to use the headless approach versus runtime removal without bloating.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and no mention of success/error behavior, file-saving semantics, or distinction from game_remove_node. For a destructive file operation, a bit more context about persistence and validation behavior would help an agent avoid mistakes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add detail about the parameter semantics beyond the schema's example for nodePath. It does not clarify relationships between projectPath, scenePath, and nodePath, but the schema already provides adequate names and examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove a node from a scene file (headless)' clearly identifies the verb (remove), the resource (node in a scene file), and the headless/non-rendered context. It is distinct enough from siblings like game_remove_node, which operates on a running game, and modify_scene_node, which edits nodes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for file-based scene editing without launching the project, and the sibling list shows alternatives like game_remove_node for runtime removal. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over modify_scene_node or game_remove_node, so an agent gets moderate guidance from context but not clear exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.